UNJUSTIFIABLE REASONS FOR REFUSAL

It may possibly be said, in answer to this, that the assembling of a National Convention would have been useless; that the majority of the people were no doubt against "secession," and with the Government, and therefore the South would not have obtained "their rights" in that manner.

To this we reply, first, that such an opinion could not justify a refusal to make the trial. Those who, if any, entertained it, might have found themselves mistaken. Our own conviction is, that had the whole people, represented in a National Convention, been brought face to face with the alternative of some peaceful settlement or civil war, one of two things would have occurred: either, propositions of "compromise" would have been agreed upon, satisfactory to the vast majority of the South,-which the Southern leaders no doubt feared,-or, a proposition for an amicable separation would have passed. We do not say that a compromise," if subsequently ratified, would have been well. It would only have postponed the evil day. Nor do we say it would have been wise to dissolve this one nation and make two. It might have saved us the present strife, and its untold horrors, but numerous and bitter wars would no doubt have followed. All we mean to say, is, that we believe the people, compelled to face this rugged issue," would have chosen the peaceful side of the alternative, in one of these two modes.

46

But, secondly, even if the Southern people had failed in Convention, either to gain a satisfactory "compromise" or an acquiescence in their “secession," and had thereupon felt compelled to withdraw from the Convention and enact and carry out "secession" in the way they are now doing, they would, in that case,-if able to exhibit a clear record

THE COMMISSIONERS DEFIANTLY COURT WAR. 131

of unendurable wrongs,-have made a far better showing, and would have had a deeper sympathy from the civilized world, than is now possible; and more especially so, in the matter of showing a disposition for peace.

But as the facts now stand, it is the baldest of all possible pretensions, the most naked and monstrous proposition ever penned by sober and Christian men, to assert that they were all the while for peace, while the Government was all the while for war. The Government was driven into war, to save its authority, to recover its property, to maintain its honor, to preserve its existence; and the Administration, constitutionally put in power by the people, could do no less, under its oaths of office, than to guard and defend these interests to the last. But the conspirators against the Government could not be coaxed or goaded into any measure for peace; but to be "let alone," after they had stolen all they could grasp, and would subvert forever the authority of the Government throughout half the territory of its jurisdiction, was the least of their modest demands.

THE COMMISSIONERS DEFIANTLY COURT WAR.

If any further evidence be desired to show the determination of the South for war, we find it officially certified, by the Confederate Commissioners. In reply to Mr. Seward's "Memorandum" of March 15th, 1861, they address him a long and their final note, dated April 9th. They assert that the people of seven States "have rejected the authority of the United States and established a Government of their own." Mr. Seward had referred them to a National Convention as the only Constitutional method for negotiation. Notwithstanding this, they complain, that, while they had come "with the olive-branch of peace," the Government,-which the Secretary of State

had assured them had no authority in the premises,— would not treat with them, nor "recognize the great fact of a complete and successful revolution."

To show whether the leaves of this "olive-branch" were fresh or withered, observe what they further say:

The undersigned would omit the performance of an obvious duty, were they to fail to make known to the Government of the United States, that the people of the Confederate States have declared their independence with a full knowledge of all the responsibilities of that act, and with as firm a determination to maintain it by all the means with which nature has endowed them, as that which sustained their fathers when they threw off the authority of the British crown. * The President of the United States knows that Fort Sumter cannot be provisioned without the effusion of blood.

* *

That is, if the United States shall deign to send provisions to its starving garrison, they will, if possible, prevent it by force. This is the kind of "peace" in the interest of which these gentlemen present the "olive-branch," and for which they stand ready to "negotiate" if the President will but receive them.

A DIPLOMATIC QUIBBLE.

There is one feature of this diplomatic note which exhibits true Southern chivalry. The Commissioners say to the Secretary of State, that they understand him to decline any interview:

Because, to do so, would be to recognize the independence and separate nationality of the Confederate States. This is the vein of thought that pervades the memorandum before us. The truth of history requires that it should distinctly appear upon the record, that the undersigned did not ask the Government of the United States to recognize the independence of the Confederate States. They only asked audience to adjust, in a spirit of amity and peace, the new relations springing from a manifest and accomplished revolution in the Government of the LATE Federal Union.

A DIPLOMATIC QUIBBLE.

133

How humiliating it is to see the Plenipotentiaries of a "first-class Power" resort to such miserable quibbling. In their first note, they declare at the opening, that they "have been duly accredited by the Government of the Confederate States," and they ask at the close, a day to be appointed, "in order that they may present to the President of the United States the credentials which they bear, and the objects of the mission with which they are charged." In their second and final note, they say to Secretary Seward, at its opening: "You correctly state the purport of the official note addressed to you by the undersigned on the 12th ult." They close this note by saying: "The undersigned, Commissioners of the Con federate States of America, having thus made answer to all they deem material in the memorandum filed in the Department on the 15th of March last, have the honor to be," &c. And throughout the body of both notes they assert the nationality of the "Confederate States" they represent, both de facto and de jure, and formally declare the grounds on which they assert such claim. And yet, in the face of all this, they declare that they "did not ask the Government of the United States to recognize the independence of the Confederate States."

What a paltry piece of finesse for "chivalric" gentlemen! Suppose they "did not ask" this, in terms, did not the whole proceeding on their part imply that such was their demand? And had the United States Government held any intercourse with them, without an express disclaimer, would it not have been pleaded as a virtual recognition? This is on a par with their pretension that they bear "the olive-branch of peace," while they threaten the Government with an "effusion of blood." It is like every thing else connected with "secession" from first to

last, a lie and a cheat; mendacity and hypocrisy, diplomatically combined.

It is further noticeable here, that these Commissioners had got beyond the "secession" stage of the fever, which is always claimed to be a peaceful type of this Southern malady. They speak of "seven States" having effected "a complete and successful revolution;" and of an "accomplished revolution," &c. They use these terms, not with reference to any aspect of the case occasioned by their failure to negotiate with the Government, nor in consequence of the hostile attitude which they charge the Government with having taken; but they claim this as the status of the seceded States from the first. "Secession," then, when defined by themselves, is "revolution ;" and this revolution, like most others, was begun and has been carried on till now by acts of war. "Revolution," says a distinguished writer, "always implies rebellion, and rebellion is war."

PUBLIC FACTS DECIDE THE CASE.

But take any view of the case which the facts disclose; trace the history of the movement from the first demonstrations immediately after the Presidential election, November 6th, 1860, to the attack upon Fort Sumter, April 12th, 1861; call to mind the seizures of every description of the property of the United States, made at every stage between these dates, within rebel reach, upon land and water; note the pulling down of the United States flag from every place where it floated, on CustomHouses, Post-Offices, Arsenals, Mints, Forts, and Vessels of War, and the unfurling upon them instead, the flags of the respective States where this public property was located, from the Potomac to the Rio Grande, and from the Missouri to Cape Sable; estimate the thousands of